Smoking

[MrktMkr1986]

The commie bit? That was just a joke; I just started getting from Duke this sense that he was trying to make you out to be a communist.

I am so OPPOSED to communism it's not even funny. Just because I prefer to have more government intervention IN COMPARISON to Duke, does not make me Communist. Just because Duke prefers to have "no" government intervention IN COMPARISON to me, does not make him a Anarchist.

I was not joking when I said Liberalism is derived from Libertarianism.

And in regard to compassion, do you mean to Swift? If he has some history or something I don't know about, sorry. I was unaware, didn't mean to offend.

I was not talking about Swift. I was talking about Jeff in the Rumble Strip. He was cursing at you and I assumed that that was the reason why you were coming at me in a facetious manner.

 

[Danoff]

Let's just say that in a totally unregulated economy, money-making opportunities are endless.

I am not being evasive.

uh huh...

I was not joking when I said Liberalism is derived from Libertarianism.

I consider myself a Liberal in the classic sense. This is no surprise - that libertarian and liberal have the same root.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

uh huh...

That hurt... I meant what I said. I find it ironic, though, that you would say something like that, as I have asked several questions and rather than give me a straight answer, I was given more questions...

I consider myself a Liberal in the classic sense. This is no surprise - that libertarian and liberal have the same root.

I just wanted Greg to understand the roots. He jokingly made the remark as if he was trying to say Duke is far removed from being a Commie when in reality, there are elements of the "left" in the Libertarian ideology. I will be addressing all of these issues when I finish the essay.

You have started a trend with these essays!

 

[Swift]

Where did I say anything about heroine or cocaine? This is strictly about smoking.



Almost makes him sound like he's a commie, eh?

You said it right here:

Drugs however are an entirely different story. Even when people try cocaine or ecstacy, it doesn't mean they're instantly going to get hooked. That's usually a trait of that particular person's...personality. Addiction is personal trait, and while yes, some drugs do have addictive ingredients, many also do not.

 

[Danoff]

I meant what I said. I find it ironic, though, that you would say something like that, as I have asked several questions and rather than give me a straight answer, I was given more questions...

Well, I've never tried to dodge your questions - at least I haven't intentionally tried to dodge them. If you think I've skipped over one of your main points, please let me know. I try not to do that, but if it happens I'd like to know about it.

I just wanted Greg to understand the roots. He jokingly made the remark as if he was trying to say Duke is far removed from being a Commie when in reality, there are elements of the "left" in the Libertarian ideology.

There are elements of the "left" in the libertarian ideology, but those elements are the ones that are farthest from communism. Libertarian is not quite a polar opposite to communism (that would be anarchy), but it's about as close as one can get and stay practical (yes I called it practical).

 

[Danoff]

Do you understand that Prohibition reduced the consumption of alcoholic beverages by Americans by 50%, cirrhosis of the liver by 63%, mental hospital admissions for alcohol psychosis by 60% and arrests for drunk and disorderly behavior by 50%.

I'd like to talk about this though.

Do the ends justify the means? Does the goal of making everyone healthy justify the means of taking away their freedom? I don't think so, but it seems that some do.

What are you justified in doing to save a life? Stealing a dime, a quarter, a dollar, a million dollars? Putting someone's life at risk? Shooting someone innocent? Perhaps locking that person behind bars is worth it to save their life. Perhaps removing that person's arms and legs is worth it to save their life? Who are you to decide these things?

I don't have to make any tough decisions about other peoples' lives. I say let them decide. I say let others have access to their alcohol and let them decide if they want to risk getting cirrhosis. Let them decide if they want to risk getting arrested for disorderly conduct.

By refusing to take their freedom I do not have to decide how much freedom is worth how much safety. I let them decide it for themselves.

Now lets say they decide to smoke dope - and they quit their job. And somehow that raises the price of my new addidas by .05 cents. Has that person infringed on my rights? Did I have a right to have the prices of my shoes .05 cents lower? Did a have a right to force that dope smoking person to go to work, to do whatever it is they did in order to lower my shoe prices? Of course not, that would violate his rights to be free. Otherwise he is my slave, and everyone is my slave - because people's decisisions affect the prices of goods in a free market, their choices affect me. But I have no right to pay a certain price for grapefruit. I have no right to force someone to make business decisions so that I can pay less for cigarettes - that would infringe on their rights to make their own choices.

Virtually everything affects you - from ABC exectuives' TV programming choices to Chevron's choice to raise gasoline to $5/gallon. But I have no right to force it to be otherwise. I have only my own freedom - and I only have that so long as I allow others to have their freedom - which means not attempting to regulate their business choices, or their lifestyle choices - which includes smoking (tobacco or otherwise).

 

[Swift]

I'd like to talk about this though.

Do the ends justify the means? Does the goal of making everyone healthy justify the means of taking away their freedom? I don't think so, but it seems that some do.

What are you justified in doing to save a life? Stealing a dime, a quarter, a dollar, a million dollars? Putting someone's life at risk? Shooting someone innocent? Perhaps locking that person behind bars is worth it to save their life. Perhaps removing that person's arms and legs is worth it to save their life? Who are you to decide these things?

I don't have to make any tough decisions about other peoples' lives. I say let them decide. I say let others have access to their alcohol and let them decide if they want to risk getting cirrhosis. Let them decide if they want to risk getting arrested for disorderly conduct.

You know Danoff. Your points aren't bad at all. But your examples always go to extremes.

Let me ask you the alcohol question in another way. Is it fair to put a nurse returning home from second shift at risk of a drunk that just left the bar at 1 am, just so that drunk driver can have his "freedom"?

That freedom is clearly violating any and all drivers rights to not be smashed into on the road. Period. In this case, that happens all to often, what do you think?

 

[Danoff]

You know Danoff. Your points aren't bad at all. But your examples always go to extremes.

Extremes are useful. They give you a quick answer as to whether you're walking a slippery slope.

Let me ask you the alcohol question in another way. Is it fair to put a nurse returning home from second shift at risk of a drunk that just left the bar at 1 am, just so that drunk driver can have his "freedom"?

Who is putting the nurse at risk here? Me? I'm not responsible for some dude's drunk driving. Let's not mistake who is at fault here. The drunk is the one doing the risking.

However, as I have said before, I am fine with the government regulating behavior on publicly owned property (like streets). It belongs to the public. Regulating what goes on on privately owned land - as is the case with this smoking matter - is another story.

But let's think about what makes sense for the drunk driving statutes. Does it make sense to outlaw drunk driving on public streets? I don't think so. How do you test for it, how do you look at a car and decide if the person within is drunk? You can't. You can decide other things - like he's driving recklessly, or too fast or slow.

Another thing to consider with drunk driving. How do you know how much is too much? How much drunk is ok and how much is not ok? Some people can drive fine when they have quite a bit of alcohol, some cannot. This is the way with all things, some people are more adept than others. So how do you decide what is too drunk? Better to stick with something more concrete - like reckless driving.

But let's think about this from yet another angle. What is the penalty for drunk driving? Nobody has been harmed right? A drunk was out driving too slow, pulled over and found to be drunk. Now what do you do with him? Give him the death penalty? Give him a 100 dollar fine and make him wait it out? What's the sentence for someone who has harmed nobody - who's only real crime so far was driving 5 mph in a 35? You'd feel bad putting him in jail for 10 years right? If not, you'd feel bad giving him the death penalty I'm sure. So what kind of a deterrent is that? Now you have a not-so-steep fine for drunk driving? Is that really preventing as much drunk driving as you want? In order to prevent it, you have to make the punishment not really fit the crime in this case.

Better to up the penalty for actually hurting someone. If the penalty for killing someone as a result of drunk driving were - say - life in prison. That would be a real drunk driving deterrent. Then people would know exactly what they were risking when they got in the car. Then people would be well aware of the danger to their own freedom. That makes much more sense and is much more cut and dry. And policing that, or reckless driving (or both) is much much easier than policing drunk driving.

Again, I am fine with behavioral regulations on public property, but you have to look at what makes sense - taking into account how people will behave.

 

[Swift]

Extremes are useful. They give you a quick answer as to whether you're walking a slippery slope.




But let's think about what makes sense for the drunk driving statutes. Does it make sense to outlaw drunk driving on public streets? I don't think so. How do you test for it, how do you look at a car and decide if the person within is drunk? You can't. You can decide other things - like he's driving recklessly, or too fast or slow.

That was rather uninisghtful. How does an officer know anything as to the reason of the irradic or reckless driving until they pull the driver over? That point is useless. It could be anything from a guy driving his pregnant wife to the hospital and he's all nervous, to a drunk/high moron.

Another thing to consider with drunk driving. How do you know how much is too much? How much drunk is ok and how much is not ok? Some people can drive fine when they have quite a bit of alcohol, some cannot. This is the way with all things, some people are more adept than others. So how do you decide what is too drunk? Better to stick with something more concrete - like reckless driving.

Nope, I say that any alchohol level that exceeds children's cough medicine should be punished as drunk driving. That's right.

But let's think about this from yet another angle. What is the penalty for drunk driving? Nobody has been harmed right? A drunk was out driving too slow, pulled over and found to be drunk. Now what do you do with him? Give him the death penalty? Give him a 100 dollar fine and make him wait it out? What's the sentence for someone who has harmed nobody - who's only real crime so far was driving 5 mph in a 35? You'd feel bad putting him in jail for 10 years right? If not, you'd feel bad giving him the death penalty I'm sure. So what kind of a deterrent is that? Now you have a not-so-steep fine for drunk driving? Is that really preventing as much drunk driving as you want? In order to prevent it, you have to make the punishment not really fit the crime in this case.

Better to up the penalty for actually hurting someone. If the penalty for killing someone as a result of drunk driving were - say - life in prison. That would be a real drunk driving deterrent. Then people would know exactly what they were risking when they got in the car. Then people would be well aware of the danger to their own freedom. That makes much more sense and is much more cut and dry. And policing that, or reckless driving (or both) is much much easier than policing drunk driving.

Again, I am fine with behavioral regulations on public property, but you have to look at what makes sense - taking into account how people will behave.

LOL, ok. There is a difference between attempted murder and murder last time I checked. And the penalties are different as well. Of course you can't put someone in jail forever because they drove drunk without hurting anyone. But you can take away their driving priviledge(driving isn't a right, but I'm sure you agree on that part ). But yeah, if the kill or hurt someone, it should be treated just like they tried to do it with a knife or a gun. I'm sorry, but drunk driving is just a curse on this country and to many people are effected by it to justify the "freedom" that you're talking about. I'm not talking "big brother", but dang, if you can't see that drunk driving is bad from every possible angle, I don't know what else to say.

 

[Danoff]

That was rather uninisghtful. How does an officer know anything as to the reason of the irradic or reckless driving until they pull the driver over? That point is useless. It could be anything from a guy driving his pregnant wife to the hospital and he's all nervous, to a drunk/high moron.

You missed the point. It's harder to police. The cop doesn't know if he's pulling someone over for a real reason or not. He's just pulling them over because he thinks there might be a reason to do so. It makes more sense to regulate the symptom rather than the cause. It's harder to ascertain the cause, but the symptom is apparent.

Nope, I say that any alchohol level that exceeds children's cough medicine should be punished as drunk driving. That's right.

I guess you didn't read the part about some people being ok with more alcohol then others, or you ignored it. The bottom line is that there is no easy one-size-fits all solution to this, which makes it all the more difficult to regulate the cause and more reason to regulate the effect.

LOL, ok. There is a difference between attempted murder and murder last time I checked. And the penalties are different as well. Of course you can't put someone in jail forever because they drove drunk without hurting anyone. But you can take away their driving priviledge(driving isn't a right, but I'm sure you agree on that part ). But yeah, if the kill or hurt someone, it should be treated just like they tried to do it with a knife or a gun.

Again missing the point. How can you justify penalizing someone severely who's only real crime is driving slow. You'd say that they were risking the lives of others, but you have no way to ascertain that risk, yet you want to penalize them. And your penalty isn't so harsh that people won't risk it anyway - because you don't want to over penalize a weak infringement.

I'm surprised that you were able to respond to my post with such dismissal. I pointed out several reasons why current drunk driving statues are ugly. I didn't even go into all of them - like the fact that when laws are ugly - it gives police more power then they should have - like the ability to pull over a car just because they thought maybe there was a problem. I described several ways in which it is difficult to regulate behavior - and how it could be done better. You've not responded to my suggestions for how it should be done better, and dismissed the difficulties because you personally think you have the tough questions figured out.

I don't know that I can make it any clearer than I already have.

 

[Anderton Prime]

danoff, your statement about some people being okay with higher levels of alcohol in their blood than other people is just plain stupid. It immediately conjures up the image of a big macho jock thinking he's fine after 6 beers and getting behind the wheel of his car. The truth is that no one can accurately judge the state of their own innebriation, aside from a simple "I feel fine." I saw a special on TV a few months ago where a research team went into a university and tested students both before they'd imbibed alcohol and after. Though almost 80% of the males stated that they believed they were sober enough to drive, the tests (which measured reaction time, hand-eye coordination, comprehension and memory) showed the frightening truth. After as little as one alcoholic beverage, even the big heavy males showed delayed reaction time and trouble reacting to visual stimuli as quickly as if they were sober.

Which is why North America has adopted the current program of .8%, because this is deemed below the minimum Blood Alcohol Level nation-wide before driving becomes dangerous. THAT is how Canada and the U.S. have come up with a one-size-fits-all solution. If you're a big burly guy who thinks he's invincible and can down a six-pack and still drive, tough. You get caught with a BAL above the legal limit, you're screwed, no matter how well you THINK you can drive.

Let's also not forget that alcohol carries with it the particularly disturbing side-effect of giving the imbiber something called LIQUID COURAGE. It actually makes you think you can do things you can't do. It alters your judgement. True, weight and gender and whether you've had something to eat also alter how alcohol affects your brain, but why try to come up with a person-specific measurement for how much alcohol you can "safely" drink before driving (hint: the answer is NONE)? Why take the risk? Innocent people die every day because some a$$hole thought he was okay to drive after he'd had a few.

I'm sorry, but when you're on the road, you're responsible not only for your life and your passengers' lives, but for the life of everyone else on the road with you. A car can be transformed into a lethal weapon in the blink of an eye. Alcohol and driving don't mix, and there are tens of thousands of North Americans who don't seem to be able to get this through their thick skulls.

 

[Swift]

I'm surprised that you were able to respond to my post with such dismissal. I pointed out several reasons why current drunk driving statues are ugly. I didn't even go into all of them - like the fact that when laws are ugly - it gives police more power then they should have - like the ability to pull over a car just because they thought maybe there was a problem. I described several ways in which it is difficult to regulate behavior - and how it could be done better. You've not responded to my suggestions for how it should be done better, and dismissed the difficulties because you personally think you have the tough questions figured out.

I don't know that I can make it any clearer than I already have.

Believing you can fix the effect without changing the cause is the very definition of insanity: Doing the same thing and expecting different results.

First of all, since when do all drunk drivers just drive slow? Second, I can assertain the risk because that person doesn't have total control over their or themselves. Period. So they are putting others at risk. Third, when an officer pulls a person over for whatever reason, he doesn't know the exact cause of the reckless driving, swerving, speeding or whatever UNTIL he gets a chance to totally assess the situtation. Last time I checked, nobody is psychic.

I can see that you want freedom for yourself and for others, but freedom isn't free and has costs. To have total freedom is impossible in a society where it is acceptable to do things that WILL put others in danger.

 

[Danoff]

Believing you can fix the effect without changing the cause is the very definition of insanity: Doing the same thing and expecting different results.

*Sigh*... not what I'm talking about

First of all, since when do all drunk drivers just drive slow?

I never claimed that.

Second, I can assertain the risk because that person doesn't have total control over their or themselves. Period.

So any lack of control is unacceptable? Get rid of the radio and passengers and handcuff people's hands to their wheel. Period. That's the kind of extreme level you are talking about here.

Third, when an officer pulls a person over for whatever reason, he doesn't know the exact cause of the reckless driving, swerving, speeding or whatever UNTIL he gets a chance to totally assess the situtation. Last time I checked, nobody is psychic.

Exactly. That's my point.

danoff, your statement about some people being okay with higher levels of alcohol in their blood than other people is just plain stupid.

No, it's just plain correct. Your refusal to accept reality - that some people can handle alcohol better than others - is just plain stupid.

It immediately conjures up the image of a big macho jock thinking he's fine after 6 beers and getting behind the wheel of his car.

I don't car what images it conjures up in your mind, it's still correct. You go ahead and imagine anything you want, it won't necessarily have any bearing on what I'm talking about.

Which is why North America has adopted the current program of .8%, because this is deemed below the minimum Blood Alcohol Level nation-wide before driving becomes dangerous. THAT is how Canada and the U.S. have come up with a one-size-fits-all solution.

That's funny. Translation North America has adopted a one-size-fits-all solution - that is how they came up with a one-size-fits-all solution . You're making my point for me. It's arbitrary - and there are better ways to handle it.

Let's also not forget that alcohol carries with it the particularly disturbing side-effect of giving the imbiber something called LIQUID COURAGE.

I know that you don't realize it (and won't when you read this) but this is totally 100% beside the point. I don't care how much courage they have, if they are driving recklessly or hurt someone, they should go to jail.

 

[smellysocks12]

Or they would just rob the gov't stash that has the heroin...

Giving just a little bit of drugs to an addict is like giving a little bit of meat to a hungry pit bull. You're only making him hungrier.

I disagree here. You should distribute it on doctor's receipt so it can be controlled. This way you know who gets how much of it. A drug addict will get his hit of drugs no matter what. If you don't provide him of the drugs, then he will find a way of his own to do it, even if that does mean stealing your car. Those people don't have a sense of reason anymore, especially once they haven't had a shot for a while. If you don't give him a place to stay he'll sleep at your subway / train station, sitting right next to you stinking up the place. They aren't criminals, they are just ill and in need of their medicine. Their disease is self inflicted, but that doesn't mean that they should be treated as ill people, not as criminals just because they have a drugs problem.

 

[smellysocks12]

This is known as the "Dutch Treat", and it is an abject failure.

Where is the research paper where you obtained this information? So far our drug policy is more effective than the one in the USA. There are relatively more drug users in the USA than over here in the Netherlands. Just like there are more people with an alcohol problem in America, just because they aren't allowed to drink until they are 21 years old. They're looking forward to that moment and once they're allowed to they drink themselves into addicts. In Europe where the youth is introduced to alcohol at a younger age it isn't even interesting to them anymore once they're 21.

 

[Swift]

*Sigh*... not what I'm talking about

Yeah, it really is. You say that we shouldn't stop people from drinking, or drunk driving. But we should punish them after the KILL someone. You're telling me that unless they hurt someone or get caught then it's OK? Sure....until the next time. Get real.

 

[Danoff]

Yeah, it really is. You say that we shouldn't stop people from drinking, or drunk driving. But we should punish them after the KILL someone. You're telling me that unless they hurt someone or get caught then it's OK? Sure....until the next time. Get real.

No, it's really not. I say that we shouldn't stop1 people from drinking, or drunk driving. I say we should stop people from reckless driving and/or harming someone.

In otherwords, if a cop finds a reckless driver he should pull them over for reckless driving, not because he suspects drunk driving.

The bottom line is that what I propose would reduce drunk driving accidents, give police less power, make the law more fair, and make the law easier to understand.

 

[Swift]

No, it's really not. I say that we shouldn't stop1 people from drinking, or drunk driving. I say we should stop people from reckless driving and/or harming someone.

In otherwords, if a cop finds a reckless driver he should pull them over for reckless driving, not because he suspects drunk driving.

The bottom line is that what I propose would reduce drunk driving accidents, give police less power, make the law more fair, and make the law easier to understand.

That's so incredibly ludicrous that I can't see straight. You're going to sit here and tell me that certain people can drive drunk, so we should just let them do it? Yeah, that's great, then they get too drunk and kill somebody. Why, cause it's cool to drink and drive according to your philosophy.

Danoff, your proposal is so inanely ignorant that it's almost unbelievable. You CANNOT tell who can drive while drunk and who can't. Just like you can't tell who will get cancer from smoking or chewing tobacco. I refuse to have my family, friends or anyone put in danger of a guy who's a little "too" drunk to drive on the public roads that you say we should have rules on.

 

[smellysocks12]

Drunk drivers ARE reckless drivers.... sheesh, if you think otherwise you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Anderton Prime]

NO IT WON'T! If a person knows they will only be pulled over if they are driving recklessly, that will do NOTHING to reduce drunk driving. Not all drunk drivers who've killed someone were driving recklessly beforehand. Or at least they weren't driving recklessly enough that a police officer would pull them over.

What you're proposing is preposterous. It would mean we'd get rid of all the drunk driving spot checks set up by police. And what should the government tell the families of those innocent people killed by drunk drivers? "Well, he wasn't driving recklessly enough to be pulled over, until he wandered into oncoming traffic and struck your daughter's car, killing her instantly. But you have to understand that we were trying to protect the basic rights and freedom of every citizen to drink as much alcohol as they feel comfortable with and then drive freely on our roads."

Moronic.

 

[Swift]

What you're proposing is preposterous. It would mean we'd get rid of all the drunk driving spot checks set up by police. And what should the government tell the families of those innocent people killed by drunk drivers? "Well, he wasn't driving recklessly enough to be pulled over, until he wandered into oncoming traffic and struck your daughter's car, killing her instantly. But you have to understand that we were trying to protect the basic rights and freedom of every citizen to drink as much alcohol as they feel comfortable with and then drive freely on our roads."

And that is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Not an extreme or unfortunately unique situation. But it proves my point.

 

[smellysocks12]

Nobody can drive drunk, alcohol slows the senses of anyone who consumes it. You might be too drunk to realize it, but you are a hazard on the road if you sit behind the wheel with more than 2 beers in your body. Those 0.2 seconds brake time it takes extra after you tanked beer into your system can mean life or death when a child crosses the street unexpectedly.



For having a STUPID opinion like that, saying that some people can drive drunk, you should have your drivers license revoked immediately. Try approaching your record time on the ring in GT4 after drinking 3 or more beers in that same hour. I bet you can't.

 

[Danoff]

Try approaching your record time on the ring in GT4 after drinking 3 or more beers in that same hour. I bet you can't.

Never claimed I could. I never claimed that I could drive well with a decent amount of alcohol in me. Go find it! Go back in my posts and look for a place where I said that... go ahead.... see if you find it. I'll wait.

still waiting...

Did you find it? No. You didn't. Because I didn't say it. So next time how about not putting the words in my mouth you feel like hearing me say.

I will claim that I can drive just fine with the amount of alcohol in me that is below the legal limit.

For having a STUPID opinion like that, saying that some people can drive drunk, you should have your drivers license revoked immediately.

Hmmm... this is productive. Calling me stupid is very much helping this dicussion. Claiming that I should have my license revoked when I have never driven drunk is also not helping.

Moronic.

You resort to this sort of thing all too often. Try to take it easy huh? We're just chatting over the internet.

What you're proposing is preposterous. It would mean we'd get rid of all the drunk driving spot checks set up by police.

That would be a good start. It would save some cash, put the police to better uses and irritate fewer people.

And what should the government tell the families of those innocent people killed by drunk drivers? "Well, he wasn't driving recklessly enough to be pulled over, until he wandered into oncoming traffic and struck your daughter's car, killing her instantly. But you have to understand that we were trying to protect the basic rights and freedom of every citizen to drink as much alcohol as they feel comfortable with and then drive freely on our roads."

You could tell them that he's going to jail for 70 years.

You didn't think about my post at all. It's pretty clear.

First and foremost I said that I was totally ok with regulating the roads. Everyone ignored that. Then I said that I thought that it made sense to make the penalty for harming someone while driving drunk much higher - and that that would deter more drunk driving than pulling people over or revoking their licesnse for a while. Everyone ignored that.

Look, if you're not going to think about what I write - and then you're going to call me an idiot. I'm not going to waste my time here. You guys are convincing me that you're incapable of holding a decent discussion.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

I feel very guilty right now. Somehow, I feel responsible for these arguments. I inadvertantly brought politics into this and the subject has changed from smoking to drinking to politics etc.

However, I have a solution for all of this.

Wait a few hours, and read my essay on Libertarianism in the CORRECT thread.

back on topic:

If you believe everyone should have the right to smoke cigarettes [anywhere, anytime], you are refusing to look at the externalities of the behavior.

 

[smellysocks12]

Hmmm... this is productive. Calling me stupid is very much helping this dicussion. Claiming that I should have my license revoked when I have never driven drunk is also not helping.

I never called you stupid, I said that you have a STUPID opinion. That isn't my opinion, that is a cold, hard fact.




People shouldn't step in a car when drunk, PERIOD. If it was up to me anyone caught driving drunk (drunk as in drunk, not 2 and a half beers) should go to jail for a year, or at least 100 hours of public service. It's better to prevent accidents from happening than cleaning up the mess or penalizing AFTER it happened.



I thought about your post thoroughly and it didn't take long for me to conclude that your opinion is stupid, please stop defending your point or else I might start thinking that you actually are stupid. 👍

 

[Anderton Prime]

I wasn't calling YOU moronic, danoff. This is Anderton Prime here. I was calling the imagined situation moronic. But I'll tone it down in order to keep the conversation civilized.

Also I did pay attention to what you wrote. But I think you are a fan of trying to regulate the "effects" of poor driving better, namely reckless driving. I am a fan of trying to outlaw the "causes" of traffic accidents, in particular drinking and driving.

Though just plain bad driving is a cause of traffic accidents too. I wonder how we can regulate that. We've got the graduated licensing system in Canada, but still there are people at the helm of cars who've got as much driver skill as if a chimpanzee were behind the wheel. But you can measure blood-alcohol levels much easier than bad driving habits at a roadside stop.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Also I did pay attention to what you wrote. But I think you are a fan of trying to regulate the "effects" of poor driving better, namely reckless driving. I am a fan of trying to outlaw the "causes" of traffic accidents, in particular drinking and driving.

I brought this up in both the Libertarian thread AND this thread.

That is -- the differences between being PROACTIVE and REACTIVE to potential infringements on one's rights.

 

[smellysocks12]

You could tell them that he's going to jail for 70 years.

I'm sure you would feel really relieved to find out that someone crashed into mother killing her while drunk driving, knowing that the guy who did it will be going to jail for 70 years. That is a lot better than not having your mother ran over at all.... right?





No... you would be the first one yelling that the law should be changed.

 

[Danoff]

No... you would be the first one yelling that the law should be changed.

You obviously haven't read enough of my posts on GTPlanet over the last couple of years.... if you had, you'd know that wasn't true.

I'm sure you would feel really relieved to find out that someone crashed into mother killing her while drunk driving, knowing that the guy who did it will be going to jail for 70 years. That is a lot better than not having your mother ran over at all.... right?

I'm not going to pretend it wouldn't help... but no, it wouldn't bring my mother back. But my mom could die in a car crash related to drunk driving tomorrow - I'm talking about reducing the likelyhood of her dieing in that crash while making the law better.

That is -- the differences between being PROACTIVE and REACTIVE to potential infringements on one's rights.

Yea, PROACTIVE is arrogant (because it assumes that you know better than others how they should behave) and isn't POTENTIAL infringement, it's GUARANTEED infringement.

Reactive can be just as strong a deterrant - perhaps even stronger (as I have outlined earlier). Consider the following. We have no way to "proactively" protect someone from premeditated murder right? Can we agree on that or do we need to talk padded cells here? There is no way to "proactively" prevent a premeditated murder, yet people aren't out there doing it all the time. Why?

Because the reaction of the state is strong. It's a major deterrant. If you say that harming anyone while drunk driving is going to lock them up for the useful part of their life - I can guarantee that fewer people will do it.

On the otherhand, if you say that drunk driving has some kinda bad penalties and harming someone while driving drunk - while bad, is something they might overcome eventually.... they're much more likely to take the risk.

...but, when you separate them like that, you end up reducing the penalties for both.

Look, I'm repeating myself here so I'll stop for now.

 

[MrktMkr1986]

Yea, PROACTIVE is arrogant (because it assumes that you know better than others how they should behave) and isn't POTENTIAL infringement, it's GUARANTEED infringement.

Proactive may be arrogant, but REactive is plainly REtarded. I mean that literally and figuratively. i.e. retard = delay

Reactive can be just as strong a deterrant - perhaps even stronger (as I have outlined earlier). Consider the following. We have no way to "proactively" protect someone from premeditated murder right?

You are ignoring the root of the problem. Why is the person trying to murder? Weak community perhaps? No morals?

Can we agree on that or do we need to talk padded cells here?

I don't want to talk about padded cells here in this thread.

There is no way to "proactively" prevent a premeditated murder,

Yes there is. I will explain why and how in my Libertarian essay.

yet people aren't out there doing it all the time. Why?

Moral conduct stemming from the rules created BY the state...

not...

Because the reaction of the state is strong.

It's a major deterrant.

Yet you would prefer no government intervention?

If you say that harming anyone while drunk driving is going to lock them up for the useful part of their life - I can guarantee that fewer people will do it.

You cannot because there is NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. You claim you are an evolutionist -- yet you have completely ignored the facts here in favor of "faith" that fewer people will drink and drive if the laws were harsher. Harsher laws = less freedom -- that goes against everything you stand for isn't it? Anyway, I REALLY want to stick to smoking as that is what this thread was started for. I will get into more detail in my essay.

By the way: Thank you for inspiring me to write more!! This will pay dividends (pun intended ) in the future.

On the otherhand, if you say that drunk driving has some kinda bad penalties and harming someone while driving drunk - while bad, is something they might overcome eventually.... they're much more likely to take the risk.

...but, when you separate them like that, you end up reducing the penalties for both.

Look, I'm repeating myself here so I'll stop for now.

Please, don't let me stop you. Sometimes repetition has a way of "getting through" to people. Which is EXACTLY what I intend to do in my essay.

[rant]time to go eat... chinese 4 dinner![/rant]